Improving food security through
Smallholder adoption of
Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI)
Sandra Fritz
Graduate Diploma (Science)
School of Geosciences
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for
Graduate Diploma in Science
University of Sydney 2015
Acknowledgements
Firstly, thanks to my supervisor, Bill Pritchard, at the University of Sydney.
I am very appreciative of the two NGOs I worked with in Timor-Leste, Mercy Corps and World Vision. Wahyu Nugroho (Manager of Agriculture and Food Security, Mercy Corps) and Segenet Tesema (Agriculture and Climate Change Technical Specialist, World Vision Pacific and Timor-Leste) – thank you so much for your time, helpful discussions, prompt email responses and friendship. I really enjoyed working with you. Thanks also to the other staff from both organisations, in Dili and the districts.
Thank you to all the farmers and other key informants – for your time and constructive discussion.
Thanks to Anton for the translations and all your other helpful attention; and to all the folks at the Santa Cruz house where I stayed in Dili – for the hospitality, friendship and great dinners.
Table of Contents Page number Acknowledgements 3 Table of Contents 4 List of Tables 6 List of Figures 6
Glossary and Acronyms 7
Chapter 1 Introduction 8
1.1 The Global Food Problem 8
1.2 The attraction of Sustainable Agricultural Intensification 11
1.3 Timor-Leste 13
Chapter 2 Sustainable Agricultural Intensification 14
2.1 What is SAI? 14
2.2 The practice and science behind SAI 16
2.2.1 Intercropping 16
2.2.2 Soil health 17
2.2.3 Fertilisation 18
2.2.4 Pest management 20
2.2.5 Water management 21
2.2.6 Climate – adaptation and mitigation 21
2.3 How productive is SAI; can it feed the world? 22
2.4 If SAI is so good, to what extent is it practiced? 25
2.5 Conclusion 26
Chapter 3 Development Challenges in Timor-Leste 28
3.1 The Difficult Path towards Timorese Independence 28
3.2 The Economic and Social Conditions of the New Nation 29
3.3 Food and Nutritional security status 31
3.4 Timor-Leste’s physical environment and climate 33
3.5 Conclusion 35
Chapter 4: Methodology 37
4.1 Choice of methodology 37
4.2 Assessing SAI’s multifunctional capacity in Timor-Leste 39
4.3 Field Work with farmers 40
4.3.1 Selecting farmers to interview 42
4.3.2 The interview process 42
4.3.3 Reflections on the interview process 44
4.4 Field work - SAI and rural development framework 46
Chapter 5 Results of Field Work 48
5.1 The Farmer Survey 48
5.1.1 Land ownership 48
5.1.3 Tools and machinery 50
5.1.4 Farm Income 50
5.1.5 Household Food Security 51
5.2 Multifunctional capacity of SAI in Timor-Leste 54
5.2.1 Livelihoods 55
5.2.2 Nutrition 56
5.2.3 Natural Resource Management 57
5.3 Conclusion 61
Chapter 6 Extent of Smallholder SAI in development framework 62
6.1 Three assumptions regarding smallholder SAI 62
6.1.1 What agriculture can do for development 62
6.1.2 Targeting smallholders 63
6.1.3 The need for SAI in Timor-Leste 65
6.1.3.1 Land 65
6.1.3.2 Water 66
6.2 Instruments of change 68
6.2.1 Embedding the multifunctional value of agriculture
in national policies 68
6.2.2 Research and extension 70
6.2.2.1 Research 71
6.2.2.2 Extension 74
6.2.3 Facilitating market entry by smallholders 77
6.2.4 Land ownership 80
6.3 Conclusion 81
Chapter 7: Conclusion 82
7.1 The capacity of SAI 82
7.2 SAI and rural development in Timor-Leste 83
7.3 Obstacles and opportunities 84
References 86
Appendix A Questions for farmers 99
Appendix B Related issues 104
Changing diets 104
Competition between food and fuel 105
List of Tables and Figures Page number List of Tables
Table 2.1 Data related to extent of SAI 26
Table 3.1 Likely impacts of climate change in Timor-Leste 35
Table 5.1 Poultry ownership 49
Table 5.2 Larger livestock ownership 50
Table 5.3 ADB ranking of living standards in sucos of farmers
Interviewed 53
Table 5.4 Production data related to Oxfam’s introduction of SRI
in Bobonaro 56
Table 5.5 Comparison of farm practices 58
Table 6.1 Water availability in the dry season 67
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Periods of Crop Harvests and Percentage of
Food Insecure Population 32
Figure 3.2 District-Level Deficit in Cereal Production Vs.
Requirement for Food Use 32
Figure 4.1 FMNR tree regeneration 39
Figure 4.2 Map of Timor-Leste 41
Figure 4.3 Interviewing 43
Figure 5.1 Land ownership of 37 farmers interviewed for this research 49
Figure 5.2 Estimated Farm Incomes (Manufahi) 51
Figure 5.3 Household food security 51
Figure 5.4 Expectations and early indications of SAI’s
multifunctional capacity 54
Figure 5.5 An example of steeply sloping land terraced with
hard benches 59
Figure 5.6 Integrated fish and chicken system. 61
Figure 6:1 Smallholder contributions to national food production
in Cuba 64
Figure 6.2 Landslips 65
Figure 6.3 Average changes in wheat and rice yield in India,
per decade 69
Figure 6.4 Mercy Corps’ simple, scalable and sustainable
Glossary and Acronyms
Aldea Village size area
Aus AID Australian Agency for International Development CSOs Civil Society Organisations
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit of Germany GMO Genetically Modified Organisms
HYV High Yielding Varieties
IFAD International Food and Agricultural Development
LH La’o Hamutuk
MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery
MC Mercy Corps
MCIE Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy
MDG Millennium Development Goal
NGO Non Governmental Organisations RDTL Republic Democratic of Timor-Leste SAP Structural Adjustment Programs
SoL Seeds of Life
Suco an area smaller than a sub-district, larger than an Aldea/village UNTL National University of Timor-Leste
UNTAET United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WB World Bank
Chapter 1 Introduction
The global problem of food insecurity is severe, and with diminishing planetary resources and a growing human population, seems likely to intensify. While the development model used in the 20th century reduced poverty and hunger in some areas, it also contributed to widespread degradation of natural resources (and in some areas contributed to inequality). It has been argued that new approaches to food security are needed that produce more output per unit of land, improve management of natural resources and provide sustainable livelihoods to the world’s 900 million smallholders (McIntyre et al. 2009). Such an approach to agriculture has been described as Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI). Because SAI is knowledge-intensive and needs to be adapted to local conditions, it is not as easily adopted as more conventional practices. Consequently, strategies for adoption and scaling-up SAI need to be customised at the country level. Using Timor-Leste as a case study, this thesis examines how, and to what advantage, SAI can be scaled-up nationally. It argues that food security1 can be improved in Timor-Leste by promoting and supporting smallholder adoption of SAI.
1.1 The Global Food Problem
The starting point for this thesis outlines the scope and character of global food insecurity; and provides a background of global response to food security in developing countries leading up to these current day debates. There are several key factors that have a significant impact on global food security that are beyond the scope of this thesis, including changing diets, resource competition from biofuels and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In recognition of their importance to the topic, brief comments are presented in Appendix B.
Worldwide, the number of undernourished people fluctuates – reaching a low of 790 million in 1995/97 (FAO 1999) and a high of 1.02 billion in 2009 (FAO 2009). Currently the figure is 805 million undernourished people, of whom more than 790 million live in the developing world (FAO 2014:12, 56). While this number is lower than in 2009, it highlights the little
1
Agreement about the ‘right to food’ is enshrined in a range of international documents; each contributing to the World Food Summit (1996) definition of food security as requiring both sufficient production and economic access to food: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO 2006a:1).
progress that has been made in 20 years. There is increasing debate about what should be done.
It is generally agreed that to address world hunger, global food production needs to increase by 50% - 100% by 2050 (Royal Society 2009; Godfray et al. 2010), when the global population will reach 9 billion (McIntyre et al. 2009). Tilman et al. forecast a required increase of 100-110% in global crop demand from 2005 to 2050; adding that "This projected doubling is lower than the 176% (caloric) and 238% (protein) increases in global crop use that would occur if per capita demands of all nations in 2050 reached the 2005 levels of [rich nations]" (2011:20260-20261).
What is not agreed is the direction of agriculture to achieve this increased production (Feldman and Biggs 2012, Kiers et al. 2008, Sumberg et al. 2012) with respect to, for example, the management of natural resources (Tilman et al. 2011), the role of biotechnology (Wager 2009; Morvaridi 2012), the role of smallholder farms (Ellis 2005; Collier 2008), the focus on commoditisation (Morvaridi 2012) and the risks of private sector land acquisitions in developing countries (Cotula et al. 2009; Hall 2011).
From the 1970s the response to poverty and food insecurity was a development model that focused on economic growth (GDP), largely through trade liberalisation, and on increased food production through crop intensification relying on high yielding varieties (HYVs), fertilisers and pesticides. This agricultural approach, usually referred to as the Green Revolution (GR), successfully improved agricultural output. By 2004 global cereal production approximately doubled without a change in the area cropped (Falcon and Naylor 2005).2 But there are two major criticisms of the model: the non-inclusive framework in which the GR was promoted, and the negative environmental impacts of the agricultural techniques.
While global cereal production was increasing, the absolute number of people facing food insecurity in the developing world (excluding China) actually increased from about 600 million in 1980 to about 700 million in 2000 (Falcon and Naylor 2005). Poverty was significantly reduced in Asia but not in sub-Saharan Africa (UN 2008:6). Inequality and exclusion also existed within regions and countries; in part, due to the high cost of inputs and variable access to credit, technology and market opportunities - placing small-scale farmers,
2
Between 1961 and 1986, global cereal yield increased by 89% while only expanding the harvested area by 11% - reaching a high of 372 kg per person/year in 1986 (Funk and Brown 2009:10).
and women in particular, at a disadvantage (FAO 2011).3 Trade liberalisation and the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the 1980s and 1990s relied on privatization without addressing sequencing of developments such as education and training and structural issues such as the flow of information and services between local communities and broad-based economic strategies (Stiglitz 2002).
The GR techniques are associated with an unprecedented loss of biodiversity, soil health, and water and air quality (McIntrye et al. 2009). Over 40 years, almost one-third of the world’s arable land was lost through erosion (Pimentel et al. 1995). Fertiliser use has resulted in eutrophication of surface waters, estuaries and coastal seas - polluting groundwater and marine environments (Tilman et al. 2001).
In 1989 the Global Assessment of Land Degradation (GLASOD) estimated 1,964 million hectares of land to be degraded, mostly as a result of inappropriate agricultural practices (Cassman et al. 2003:320).
Tilman et al. explored the potential future environmental impacts of these practices by forecasting to 2050 continued trajectories of the past 35 years or more. They found that projected increases in the use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers and irrigation practices would continue to pollute freshwater systems and significantly reduce biodiversity, changing the composition and function of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Marine environments would suffer increased toxic algae blooms and hypoxic (dead) zones such as has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. Pesticide production, which has increased for 40 years, would expand by 2.7 times, exposing humans and other organisms to markedly elevated levels of pesticides. If global trends for crop and pasture land continue, there would be a worldwide loss of natural ecosystems larger than the United States land area; representing “a third of tropical and
3
Women are the main producers of the world’s staple crops which provide up to 90% of the rural poor’s food intake. In sub-Saharan Africa, women produce up to 80% of basic foodstuffs both for household consumption and for sale. Yet, fewer than 10% of women farmers in India, Nepal and Thailand own land. An analysis of credit schemes in five African countries found that women received less than 10% of the credit awarded to male smallholders (www.fao.org/gender/en/agrib4-e.htm, cited in Pimbert 2009).
Where women are the majority of smallholder farmers, failure to release their full potential in agriculture is recognised as a contributing factor to low growth and food insecurity (World Bank 2007, Godfray et al. 2010). It is estimated that closing the gender gap in agriculture could reduce the number of undernourished people in the world in the order of 12–17%, or as much as 100–150 million people (FAO 2011:vi).
temperate forests, savannas and grasslands and of the services (including carbon storage) provided by these systems” (Tilman et al. 2001:283).
Growth in crop yields is now stagnating4 and, along with diminishing supplies of land and water, other pressures are mounting against the potential for greater food production, including climate change, a shift to more resource-intensive diets and competition for agricultural resources due to the demand for biofuels (World Bank 2007).
1.2 The attraction of Sustainable Agricultural Intensification
An agricultural development strategy is needed that not only increases food production but sustains productive capacity and improves nutrition and livelihoods for those who are most food insecure.
Alternative agricultural techniques are available that improve yields while operating within environmental constraints to protect natural resources and ecosystem services. These methods are not new, but are attracting increased attention in terms of food security and global development. This approach to agriculture is referred to as sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI), a description which recognises that in the future more food will need to be produced on the same amount of land, or even less land (Godfray et al. 2010).
SAI has been defined as “producing more output from the same area of land while reducing the negative environmental impacts and at the same time increasing contributions to natural capital and the flow of environmental services” (Pretty et al. 2011:7). SAI is not a specific farming technique but a general descriptor of farm practices based on these principles. It includes practices that build good soil structure, conserve water in the landscape, use natural crop defense mechanisms to reduce pesticide use and take advantage of the role of trees in food production systems. These same methods decrease CO2 emissions and reduce existing atmospheric concentrations through carbon sequestration (Lal 2004). The techniques are discussed in detail in the next chapter.
4
Annual growth in agricultural production will slow to 1.7% through 2021, down from 2.6% of the previous decade (FAO 2012). Per capita cereal production is now about 350 kg/per person/year, 6% less than the 1986 maximum, with significant variations between regions. Available food from this production is even less given that crop output is now also used for biofuels, alcohol and meat production (Funk and Brown 2009) further compromising food security objectives.
Importantly, SAI is linked to the multifunctional role of agriculture, i.e. producing commodities, supporting environmental services, and providing nutrition and livelihoods (Garnett et al. 2013). SAI is suitable to both large and small farms. Its suitability to small farmers is particularly significant in that 75% of poor people in developing countries live in rural areas and most depend on agriculture for their livelihoods (World Bank 2007). Increasing their capacity for higher productivity directly develops rural communities, improving food security through greater direct access to food and/or higher income. Increasing smallholder productivity promotes equity and contributes to faster economic growth through increased income distribution (Remenyi 2004:123).
This is not to suggest there isn’t a role for large-scale farming operations in poor-countries, particularly if investors bring improvements to sustainability, added value through processing and employment opportunities (Godfray et al. 2010, Wegner and Zwart 2011). But given the demographics of poverty and agriculture, the role of small-scale famers is fundamental to poverty reduction and food security.
An International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), involving 400 experts from 30 countries, was conducted to assess the impact of agricultural knowledge, science and technology on human health and sustainable development and the reduction of hunger and poverty. The report called for actions to lessen the environmental impacts of past agricultural practices and better address the needs of the world’s 900 million small farmers (McIntyre et al 2009).5
Although examples of SAI exist in many countries, scaling-up its adoption is more difficult than scaling-up conventional agriculture focused on the use of HYVs, fertilisers and pesticides - primarily because SAI is less prescriptive and more knowledge-intensive (Pretty et al. 2011); and remote, widely-dispersed and poorly resourced communities find it difficult to access specialised knowledge (Scheer and McNeely 2008). Scaling-up SAI requires
5
As with much of the development literature, the IAASTD (2009) report recognised that the success of these actions in advancing development goals also relies on factors outside of agriculture per se, including:
- increasing access of small-scale farmers to land, water and finance - providing adequate rural infrastructure (e.g., roads)
- optimising supply chains
- reducing gender and ethnic inequities - good governance
- basic education - trade rules
understanding local conditions and resources such as labour availability, access to and condition of land and water, the existing ecological or institutional constraints, the needs of local farmers and local socio-economic conditions (IAASTD 2009; Garnett et al. 2013). Because of this, strategies for adoption and scaling-up SAI need to be customised at the country level. This Graduate Diploma research responds to this requirement by investigating the potential of SAI to improve food security in Timor-Leste.
1.3 Timor-Leste
Timor-Leste is selected because it is a key candidate for any system that addresses the multifunctional roles of agriculture. Over 70% of families rely on agriculture for their livelihood (RDTL 2011). There is low agricultural productivity with mountains and hills occupying 72% of the country and shallow soils of poor quality (Egashira et al. 2006). There is an increasing level of environmental vulnerability due to past agricultural practices and overgrazing; and increasing population pressures. Timor-Leste has high levels of malnutrition and poverty.
The overall question of the thesis is “How, and to what advantage, can SAI be better supported and scaled-up nationally in Timor-Leste?” This involves examination of three key questions:
1. What is the capacity of SAI to serve the multiple functions of livelihood, nutrition and natural resource management – in general and in Timor-Leste?
2. To what extent does smallholder sustainable agriculture provide a framework for rural development in Timor-Leste?
3. What are the obstacles and opportunities associated with scaling-up SAI in Timor-Leste?
The next chapter explores SAI in greater detail, describing the kind of farming techniques involved, the science underpinning those techniques, their productive capacity and the extent to which SAI is currently practiced worldwide. Chapter 3 presents the context of Timor-Leste and its development challenges. Chapter 4 presents the methodology used in this research. Research results (the capacity of SAI; and the development framework and potential to scale-up SAI in Timor-Leste) and their implications are presented in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. Chapter 7 concludes this dissertation.
Chapter 2 Sustainable Agricultural Intensification
2.1 What is SAI?
This chapter examines sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI). It explores the kind of farming techniques involved, the science underpinning those techniques, the capacity of SAI to support natural resource management, how productive it is, and the extent to which SAI is currently practiced globally.
SAI includes a range of agricultural systems that focus on operating within environmental constraints, providing and protecting ecosystem services. These systems include, for example, agroecology, climate-smart agriculture, organic agriculture, system of rice intensification (SRI), and agroforestry systems. It incorporates conservation agriculture and aquaculture. The core principles include recycling nutrients and energy on the farm rather than introducing external inputs, integrating crops and livestock, diversifying species and genetic resources, and focusing on interactions and productivity across the agricultural system rather than on individual species alone (De Schutter 2010:6).
Many of these methods are derived from traditional agriculture (Xie et al. 2011; Gliessman 2000). Early advocates in the West include Eve Balfour and Sir Albert Howard who, in the 1940s, wrote seminal publications emphasising the importance of biologically active soil with high organic matter content. Public concern about the destructive potential of conventional farming increased following publication of Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and, later, a range of books about the negative impacts of the GR in developing countries.6 By the 1980s, alternative agricultural systems were being promoted by national organisations7 and these organisations were also coming together via the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) which was established in 1972. Increasing interest and prominence of such systems is illustrated by the change in attitudes of agricultural institutions such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which, in 1974, claimed that organic farming was ‘scientific nonsense’ and the ‘domain of eccentrics’. Seven years later, in 1981, the AAAS “published a major research paper that found organic farms to
6
For example, Weir, D. and Shariro, M. 1981. Circle of Poison – Pesticides and People in a
Hungry World, Institute for Food and Development Policy, San Francisco.
7
For example, Wynen, E. and Fritz, S. 1987. Sustainable Agriculture, A Viable Alternative, National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia, Sydney. Also see Lockeretz, W. (Ed.) 2007. Organic Farming – An International History, CABI, Oxfordshire, UK.
be highly efficient and economically competitive while using less fossil energy and suffering less soil erosion than neighbouring conventional farms” (Lockeretz 2007:1). Interest has continued to grow since the 1980s as a result of green consumerism, stronger international markets for organic produce and interest from scientists and policy makers because of the need to address natural resource management.
Sustainable intensification systems are now attracting attention with respect to food security and global development (Royal Society 2009; Godfray et al. 2010). Garnett et al. (2013) identify four core premises underlying the approach:
1. the need to increase production
2. increased production will require higher yields to avoid extending agriculture into natural ecosystems
3. food security requires as much attention to increasing environmental sustainability as to raising productivity
4. SAI denotes a goal – but does not specify how it should be attained. “The merits of diverse approaches … should be rigorously tested and assessed, taking biophysical and social contexts into account” (2013:33).
The broad approach has triggered debate as to how holistic this concept needs to be (Ponisio et al. 2014). A leading proponent of agroecology, Miguel Altieri, objects to approaches which take one (positive) aspect of agroecology and place it alongside more conventional practices such as the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), micro-dosing of fertilisers and herbicides and integrated pest management (IPM) which combines reduced use of pesticides with more natural pest control strategies. He maintains that “Agroecology does not need to be combined with other approaches” and would be rendered meaningless by such association (Altieri 2012:5).
Horlings and Marsden (2010) argue against the narrow adoption of sustainable practices in such a way that they fail to address the social, cultural, and political aspects of agriculture within societies.
In this thesis I maintain that SAI is an approach that recognises the holism of the agro-ecological environment; and that promoting its adoption by smallholders is a means of better addressing key socio-economic issues related to agriculture. The decision to use technologies must be based on an understanding about what agricultural methods complement or contradict biological processes and ecosystem services on which farmers rely (Pretty et al. 2011).
Although strict agroecological and organic systems are viable now in many places worldwide, transition to more sustainable farming requires new information, understanding and skills – all of which most of the world’s poor farmers do not have access to. In line with Horlings and Marsden (2010) this thesis focuses on the multifunctionality of agriculture. SAI is not just about adopting more environmentally sustainable farming practices, but promoting its adoption by small-scale farmers in order to improve their livelihoods, household nutrition and the long-term productivity of their land – all critical elements of food security. In this respect, SAI – in this thesis – could also be referred to as Multifunctional Agriculture (MA).
2.2 The practice and science behind SAI
The philosophy behind SAI can be illustrated with respect to agricultural practices relating to six areas: intercropping, soil health, fertilisation, pest management, water management and climate. The following discussion of each demonstrates the holistic nature of the SAI approach.
The use of GMOs is one of the key points of dispute about the direction of agricultural development, even amongst proponents of SAI. Discussion on this point has been included in Appendix B.
2.2.1 Intercropping
Intercropping is growing two or more crops together in a mixture such as corn/beans/squash. All three species are planted at the same time. Corn soon dominates the canopy, protecting beans and squash from heat stress, to which they are more vulnerable. Beans climb to occupy the middle layer and, as a legume, supply nitrogen to the corn (which has high nutrient demand). Squash remains at ground level, reducing water evaporation by shading the soil surface and aiding weed control as a living mulch and by leaching allelopathic chemicals when it rains. In this system herbivores are at a disadvantage as the mix makes it more difficult to find their food source. Corn yields can be as much as 50% greater than in mono-cropped systems. The beans and squash suffer a yield reduction but total yields for the three crops together are higher than what would have been obtained in an equivalent area planted to monocultures of the three crops (Gliessman 2000).
The intercropping of lettuce and broccoli provide an example of how other characteristics are matched. Lettuce is short-rooted and matures quickly. Broccoli roots penetrate deeper, reducing competition with the lettuce. Once lettuce are harvested broccoli, which grows large and matures slowly, can take advantage of the available space. Testing of the intercropping of lettuce and broccoli at three planting densities showed that intercropping produced higher total yields (from 10% - 36% higher) than control plots of each planted as a standard mono-crop (Gliessman 2000).
Finally, intercropping promotes the presence of beneficial insects with a more attractive microclimate and more diverse pollen and nectar sources (Gliessman 2000:224).
2.2.2 Soil health
The importance of soil protection and maintenance of its structure can not be overestimated. Soil degradation “affects 200 million hectares of cultivated land in 37 Africa countries and is becoming increasingly recognized as a primary constraint to agricultural development” (Sanchez et al. 1997 and Conway 1998 cited in Verchot et al. 2007:10). The cost of soil erosion in Kenya “is equivalent to 3.8 per cent of GDP and equal in magnitude to national electricity production or agricultural exports” (Cohen et al. 2005 cited by Verchot et al. 2007:6).
Healthy soil, a critical element of which is a high level of organic matter, is one of the fundamental characteristics of sustainable agriculture. Organic matter increases biological activity in the soil, important for pest and disease resistance; and increases the soil’s cation exchange capacity, holding nutrients in the soil (reducing leaching to downstream water systems) and increasing their availability to plants. Organic matter is critical to soil structure, it creates pore spaces providing aeration and water-holding capacity - building resilience to drought and rising temperatures (Gliessman 2000).
One method of building soil health is by the use green manures, which are crops grown specifically to supply the soil with organic matter and nutrients by being turned into the soil before reaching full maturity. While growing, they protect the soil from heat, wind, and rain; reducing erosion and helping to maintain the biological activity of the soil. Green manures, or other vegetative cover in place of bare fallows, can provide an opportunity for livestock as
part of the rotation; improve nutrient holding and weed management; provide a break in the cycle of pests and potentially attract pest predators8 (FAO 2010).
Soil health and structure is also maintained by reduced tillage. Tillage causes oxidation of the organic matter9 along with a loss of carbon dioxide, and destroys biopores in the soil structure (FAO 2010:5). Reduced tillage supports increased earthworm abundance and activity (Gliessman 2000) and reduces water runoff and erosion (Schumacher and Rickerl 2004).
‘Zero tillage’ is a practice that has been widely adopted and is also referred to as Conservation Agriculture (CA). Because CA commonly uses herbicides for weed control as a substitute for tillage, its acceptance as a form of SAI illustrates the debates about what should be included as SAI. Horlings and Marsden (2010) argue that zero tillage in combination with crop rotations and diversification into livestock has consistently reduced weed infestations contributing to improved food security for small farmers. Kassam et al. (2009) report that herbicide can be reduced by 30-50% in CA systems and that crop rotations reduce weeds over time. They emphasise its capacity to conserve soil, water and biological activity; and that CA is practised without herbicides in the USA, Brazil and Germany.
2.2.3 Fertilisation
In addition to green manures, SAI employs a range of fertilising practices including compost, animal dung, leguminous trees, rock phosphate and biogas residues. The macronutrients that most limit agricultural production are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) (Badgley et al 2007) but attention to micronutrients and nutrient balancing is also important.
Nitrogen is commonly supplied through leguminous plants which, through bacteria that live and reproduce in their root systems, are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to ammonia. The ammonia becomes a fixed part of the soil nutrient supply and can be taken up by plant roots as nitrate (Gliessman 2000). Due to the cost of mineral fertilisers, poor farmers use none or little (e.g. in African countries farmers use an average of 9kg/ha). The use of leguminous crops can supply up to 150kg nitrogen/hectare (Verchot et al. 2007) reducing dependency on
8
For example, in Georgia, berseem is a winter legume grown as fodder/green manure and habours Geocoris punctipes, a beneficial predatory insect (SAREP 2011).
9
For example, while organic matter levels of 3.5% are indicative of good soil, the average organic matter content of top soil in Bangladesh declined by 20 to 46 percent (to one percent) over 20 years of intensive cultivation (MOEF 2002:19-20).
mineral fertilisers while also providing soil surface protection, diversity in cropping and cash income (Denning et al. 2009).10
Leguminous plants can be incorporated into the farming system as agroforestry. Agroforestry is the planting of trees or shrubs at the same time, or in rotation, with crops or pastureland. Agroforestry can provide diversification with food, fibre, fuel and/or fodder for livestock (Nunes 2003:20, ITC 2008:15). Trees provide habitat for beneficial insects to enhance pollination and pest control (Tilman et al. 2002) and provide shelter for farm animals, reducing the amount of feed required and increasing fertility and birth weights of offspring. Trees provide shade for heat-sensitive crops and help to hold water in the landscape, reducing soil erosion and the impact of floods and drought (Smith et al. 2000).
The use of shrubs or trees in rotation does not represent lost productivity. In Zambia, plants (e.g., Sesbania sesban) are used in a system of rotational fallows lasting 2–3 years and providing 100–250 kg of nitrogen/hectare. Maize grown after 2 years of Sesbania yielded more than 4t/ha compared with the usual of less than 1 t/ha.; i.e., more maize was produced in one year following Sesbania than would have been produced if farmers continuously cropped maize over 3 years. In addition, the Sesbania provided between 15 and 21 t/ha of fuel wood for rural households (Kwesiga et al. 2003 cited by Garrity et al. 2010). Faidherbia albida trees supply nitrogen as well as phosphorus, calcium, potassium and magnesium. They reduce wind speed and evaporation and their deep roots break up plough-pan barriers in the soil profile. The trees are dormant in the rainy season when food crops are grown, and consequently don’t compete for light, nutrients or water. Their leaves shed at the beginning of the season contributing to soil organic matter content (Garrity et al. 2010).
Phosphorus is another key macro-nutrient, the deficit of which is a major constraint to agricultural productivity (Verchot et al. 2010). Phosphorus is naturally supplied to the soil by the weathering of rock. It is taken up by plants and returned to soil when the plant decomposes or is eaten by livestock which subsequently excrete phosphorus-rich dung.
Mycorrhizae fungi, an integral part of most plants, have the capacity to develop mycelium (a
thread-like vegetative mass) which extend the connection between crop roots and the surrounding soil, increasing the uptake of phosphorus and other nutrients, including zinc (the absence of which is a common contributor to malnutrition); and reduce problems with pathogens which attack the roots of plants. The addition of soluble phosphate fertilisation
10
Regardless of the source of nutrients, a key factor in controlling the loss of nitrogen via leaching or gaseous emission is using appropriate N management practices tailored to the needs of the particular cropping system (Cassman et al 2003:331).
decreases root colonization by mycorrhizae; consequently the benefits of the fungi are higher in low-input systems. Where native mycorrhizal populations are low, they may be introduced through inoculants (Grant et al 2005).
Where phosphorous is not bound within good soil structure it can contribute to water pollution through leaching or soil erosion. Because the global supply of phosphorus is limited, there is a rising awareness of the importance of keeping phosphorus cycling within the terrestrial system. In 2008, there was an 800% price spike in phosphate rock, driven by an increased demand. Although the price later declined, it has not returned to pre-2008 levels and is trending back upwards (White and Cordell, 2012). This is a key reason SAI often incorporates the traditional method of integrating livestock into the cropping system (Tilman et al. 2002) and using farming methods that maintain a biologically active soil and reduce leaching and erosion.
2.2.4 Pest management
To avoid the use of pesticides, sustainable agriculture prioritises system design to enhance natural control strategies. If the use of pesticides is necessary, the aim is to select those targeted to a specific pest (i.e. not wide-spectrum pesticides that also kill beneficial insects) and are short-lived in the environment.
The objective of system design is to reduce herbivore populations and/or attract the natural enemies of crop pests by using diversification to establish a more complex food web. Diversity can be created with a variety of species in a single location (alpha diversity) or having different vegetation communities on adjacent sites (beta diversity) at a farm or local scale; both of which contribute to gamma diversity over a larger landscape. Diversity can also occur in time (via crop rotations). Additionally, rotations create biological diversity below the soil surface by adding crop residues with varying chemistry and biology, stimulating and/or inhibiting different soil organisms (Gliessman 2000:236-7). Diversification is especially effective in the case of monophagous (specialist) insects that feed exclusively, or nearly so, on one kind of food (Nicholls and Altieri 2004).
A notable example of sustainable pest management is control of the stemborer moth and the Striga weed, both major pests of maize and sorghum, important stable crops in Africa. The “push-pull” technology involves planting two crop companions: grasses (e.g., Napier grass) around the border of crops and a legume (Desmodium) within the crop. The Napier grass releases semiochemicals (chemicals that modify the behaviour of insects) which attracts
stemborers to lay their eggs on the grass rather than the crop. The chemical is released at a 100-fold greater rate in the first hour of nightfall, just as stemborer moths are seeking host plants on which to lay their eggs. When the eggs hatch, 80% die as the Napier grass also produces a sticky sap that traps the larvae. The Desmodium, planted within the crop, acts in multiple ways: as a repellent, driving the stemborers away; as an attractant of the stemborer’s natural enemies (primarily parasitic wasps); and by releasing root chemicals that induce abortive germination of the Striga weed. As a leguminous soil cover, Desmodium also reduces soil temperatures, guards against erosion and fixes up to 100kg N/ha/year. Both Desmodium and Napier grass provide livestock fodder. The technology has increased maize yields from 1 to 3.5t/ha and sorghum from 1 to 3t/ha. The number of farmers using push–pull technology increased over a decade from a few hundred to 25,000 (in a 10,000 ha area). The target for 2015 is 50,000 ha (Khan et al. 2011).
2.2.5 Water management11
The main objective of water management in agroecosystems is to ensure that the primary route for water out of the soil is through the crop; i.e. via transpiration rather than evaporation (Gliessman 2000). In semi-arid tropical croplands up to 50% of total rainfall can be lost in non-productive evaporation. Hence, improving water use efficiency includes capturing water at farm level and, importantly, increasing plant water uptake and water-holding capacity of the landscape (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Achieving this requires adopting the same soil building techniques as required for healthy fertility such as building organic content, continuous vegetation cover, providing shade to the soil surface and reduced tillage (Gliessman 2000).
2.2.6 Climate – adaptation and mitigation
It is estimated that since 1980 global yields of maize and wheat have been reduced by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively due to climate induced changes in rainfall and temperatures (Lobell et al. cited by Campbell et al. 2014). A key aim of SAI is to increase the resilience of agriculture, making it more adaptable to a changing climate. It does this by the use of methods that hold water in the landscape; reduce dependency on a single crop through agro-diversity; and with the use of polycultures to better manage micro-climates and increase buffering against storms through multi-storied production. Research comparing the response of study plots on conventional and sustainable farms in Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch12 in 1998,
11
Water management is discussed further in Chapter 6, section 6.1.3.2 12
Hurricane Mitch is one of the Caribbean’s five most powerful hurricanes. It caused US$6.7 billion damages, equivalent to 13.3% of Central America’s GNP (Holt-Gimenez 2002).
found that sustainable farms retained more topsoil and vegetation; and suffered less erosion and landslide, and less economic losses. The difference in favour of the sustainable plots increased with increasing levels of storm intensity, increasing slope and increasing years under agroecological practices (Holt-Gimenez 2002).
These same methods mitigate against climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are decreased by reduced tillage and reduced use of mineral nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides.13 Existing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reduced through carbon sequestration in and above (e.g. with agroforestry) the soil (Lal 2004).
2.3 How productive is SAI; can it feed the world?
Although the productive capacity of SAI has been referred to in the examples above, this section more directly examines yields and whether adoption of SAI farming systems can meet global food requirements.
Badgley et al. (2007) used two models to estimate the potential of organic food production. Model 1 used yield ratios (organic : non-organic) from studies in developed countries applied to the entire global agricultural land base. Model 2 used yield ratios from studies in the developed world applied to food production in developed countries and yield ratios from studies in the developing world applied to food production in developing countries. Both models are based on the amount of land devoted to crops and pasture in 2001 and the kinds and amounts of food consumed at that time.
In Model 1 organic food supply (with a yield ratio of 0.92) is similar in magnitude to current global food supply for most food categories. In Model 2 organic food supply (with yield ratio of 1.8) exceeds current food supply in all categories, with most estimates over 50% greater than the amount currently produced. Both models suggest that organic methods could sustain the current human population in terms of daily caloric intake; with model 2 suggesting organic production could support a substantially larger global population.
13
“Nitrogenous fertilizers have hidden C costs of 0.86 kg C/kg N (IPCC, 1996), and pesticides are at least 5 times more C intensive” (Lal 2004:15).
The authors also estimated the amount of nitrogen (N) that is potentially available for organic production, considering only what could be derived from leguminous green manures grown between normal cropping periods. All other sources of organic nitrogen (e.g., animal manures and compost) were excluded from the calculations. Even within this limitation, the study concluded that there is sufficient biologically available N to replace current use of synthetic N fertilisers.
The authors consider that potential organic production was probably underestimated as a result of no account being taken of multiple crop production in poly-cultures. In addition they note that in developed countries yields initially decline following conversion from conventional to organic production.14 However, the research did not omit studies of short duration.
More recently, Ponisio et al. (2014) reviewed 1071 comparisons of organic versus conventional production in 115 studies in 38 countries. They found that organic yields were, on average, 19.2% lower than conventional yields. This yield gap was much smaller (8-9%) when conventional monocultures are compared to organic systems with multiple cropping - either in space (polycultures) or in time (crop rotations).
Ponisio et al. (2014) make two points regarding the potential of their study to overestimate conventional production. They found evidence of bias in the meta-dataset towards studies reporting higher conventional yields relative to organic;15 and detected a trend to larger yield gaps in more recent studies, without causal mechanisms being determined.
One explanation for resolving the difference between the findings of Badgley et al. (2007) and Ponisio et al. (2014) is that the latter are examining the yield gap between two strictly defined systems of organic (as in certifiable) and conventional (as in GR technology) for the purpose
14
The initial drop in yields is considered to be the result of soil degradation after years of tillage, synthetic fertilisers, and pesticide residues; with time, yields increase as soil quality is restored (NRC 1989 and Pimentel et al. 2005 cited by Badgley et al. 2007).
15
For example, cereal crops, which have been bred for high-yields with conventional inputs and which exhibit the greatest yield difference between organic and conventional systems, were significantly over-represented in the comparisons. Although the study covered 52 crop species, cereals represented 53% of comparisons (Ponisio et al. 2014). However, it should be acknowledged that cereal production is a key indicator of food availability (especially in landlocked regions with large agrarian populations) even though it is a course metric ignoring a range of variables including nutrition (Funk and Brown 2009:6).
of revealing the difference in productive capacity of these two systems. Although Badgley et al. (2007) are comparing productive capacity between organic and conventional, both terms are more loosely defined; and, importantly, their aim, and therefore their method, is slightly different. In aiming to show the potential of organic/sustainable agriculture to feed the world, they are comparing current global food production capacity (whether by conventional high-input methods or the ‘convention’ of most subsistence farming systems, i.e. ‘locally prevalent methods’) to what production levels could be achieved with adoption of more sustainable practices – from either starting point.
Both Badgley et al. (2007) and Ponisio et al. (2014) note that the development of organic (or sustainable) systems has been considerably underfunded relative to conventional systems over the last 50 years. For example, few modern varieties have been developed to produce high yields under organic conditions.
In a well-recognised study, Pretty et al. (2006) examined the adoption of sustainable interventions. The study involved 286 cases in 57 developing countries over 37 million ha. They found that sustainable interventions increased productivity on 12.6 million farms while improving the supply of critical environmental services. The average crop yield increase was 79%; and 25% of projects reported an increase of 100%. The increased production is attributed to: i) more efficient water use; ii) improved organic matter accumulation in soils; and iii) pest, weed and disease control emphasising in-field biodiversity. In the 62 IPM initiatives studied, 74% of projects lowered pesticide use by an average of 71% while yields increased by 42% (2006: c, e). Reanalysis by UNCTAD and UNEP of only the African data found that the average crop yield was even higher, at 116% increase for all African projects and 128% for projects in East Africa (De Schutter 2010:8). A later study by Pretty et al. (2011) of the adoption of SAI methods by 10.39 million farm families showed that crop yields had doubled over a period of 3-10 years, increasing aggregate food production by 5.79 million tonnes per year (557 kg per farming household).
Finally, significantly increased yields following the adoption of SAI practices have been reported by Garrity et al. (2010) and Franzel et al. (2004) with respect to agroforestry methods; and by Styger et al. (2011) in examination of SRI. The UNEP (2011) reports yields following transition to organic production in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia region to be comparable, at least, to neighbouring conventional farms.
In summary, numerous studies show crop yields from SAI to be at least comparable to those of conventional agriculture and some studies show higher (or potentially higher) yields; even when all factors influencing the productivity of SAI farms are not taken into account. SAI is also likely to have higher long-term productivity in that its methods increase resilience to climate change and reduce the negative environmental impacts of agriculture, conserving finite resources (land, soil, water) on which future food production depends. Given this, the adoption of SAI should have at least as much capacity to meet global food requirements as current practices.
2.4 If SAI is so good, to what extent is it practiced?
This section examines the extent of SAI adoption worldwide. There are SAI projects throughout the world. But it is difficult to accurately estimate the number of farmers or hectares currently involved in SAI because most reports are focused on limited geographic areas and/or particular projects; and are not studies of extent. Determining extent is also difficult due to the different farming systems involved; debate about what is and is not SAI; the varying terminology; and uncertainty about whether the data arising from the multiple reports is independent from one other. Table 2.1 is not an exhaustive survey of extent, but intended to provide some indication of the scale of SAI and to demonstrate the difficulties of determining extent of practice.
Table 2.1: Data related to extent of SAI
Type of SAI Hectares Comments Reference
SAI 28.92 million ha 208 projects in 52 developing countries surveyed during 1999-2000
Pretty and Hine 2003
Conservation Agriculture (CA)
50,000 farmers Systems of minimum soil disturbance, permanent cover, and rotations in African countries Altieri 2012:12 15 million ha in Brazil Horlings and Marsden 2011 125 million Including Brazil at 25.5
million ha. Friedrich et al. 2012 Faidherbia- dominated agroforestry systems
4.8 million ha ‘Faidherbia’ qualification limits potential extent of all agroforestry systems
Altieri 2012
SRI 4.93 million ha 8 Asian countries Altieri 2012
Agroecology >120,000 ha Latin America Altieri 2012
Organic 37.5 million ha Worldwide data end of 2012 (1.9 million producers)
FiBL 2013 8.94 million in
China
Certified “green”; plus
uncertified “green” - allowing some chemical use.
Horlings and Marsden 2011
One aspect about extent that is clear is that the adoption of SAI is increasing. Garrity et al. (2010) report that hundreds of thousands of smallholders in Zambia, Malawi, Niger and Burkina Faso are shifting to farming systems that restore soils and increase food crop yields and incomes.
As part of their 2006 study, Pretty et al. randomly selected 68 projects from an earlier study (in Africa, Asia and Latin America by Pretty and Hine 2003) to re-sampled. They found that the number of farmers involved in the 68 projects increased 56% over 4 years (from 5.3 to 8.3 million) and the number of hectares increased by 45% (from 12.6 to 18.3 million).
Organic agriculture is also reported to be spreading. The global area of certified organic agriculture in 2001 was 0.3% (Badgley et al. 2007). Organic agriculture now takes place on 0.9% of agricultural lands [Willer and Kilcher 2011 cited by Ponisio et al 2014).
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter has presented the practices and science of SAI emphasising the connections between agriculture and natural resource management. It has demonstrated the productive capacity of SAI and the extent to which it has been adopted; which, while limited, is increasing.
While the knowledge-intensive nature of SAI makes its adoption more difficult, there is extensive support for scaling-up SAI adoption (e.g., Franzel et al. 2004; World Bank 2008; McIntrye et al. 2009; Horlings and Marsden 2010; UNEP 2011; Altieri 2012; FAO 2014). The UK Government argues that SAI is a priority and that “Producing sufficient food to feed the global population will become increasingly difficult without major changes to the food system” (GOS 2011:164). This is certainly the case in Timor-Leste which is the subject of the next Chapter.
Chapter 3 Development Challenges in Timor-Leste
Timor-Leste is the newest country in Asia, and possesses some of the most severe food security and sustainability challenges in the entire Asia-Pacific region. This chapter documents how the broader developmental problems of Timor-Leste exacerbate the food and sustainability dilemmas of the country.
3.1 The Difficult Path towards Timorese Independence
The food security and sustainability challenges in Timor-Leste cannot be divorced from the country’s tumultuous history. As a Portuguese colony from the 16th
century until 1975, East Timor (as it was then known) was exploited for the island’s abundant supply of sandalwood. When the sandalwood trade declined, the colonisers introduced cash crops such as wheat, sugarcane, coffee and potatoes. The Portuguese reformed agriculture to suit themselves and the Chinese business class who acted as middlemen between Portugal and the locals, and conducted trade with Indonesia (Ewing 2008).
Portugal granted East Timor liberty in 1975. Only days later, Indonesia invaded and occupied East Timor for almost 25 years. The Indonesian incursion initiated a period of violence and starvation (Kingsbury 2005); 200,000 people were forced to migrate into Indonesian-controlled West Timor. Farmers were removed from their ancestral lands and traditional food production channels were destroyed. The Indonesian government monopolised the coffee and what was left of the sandalwood industries (da Costa 2003) leaving little opportunity for East Timorese to enter the industry or to develop knowledge, skills, management experience and networks.
In 1999, under international pressure, Indonesia agreed to a referendum by which East Timorese would choose between autonomy within Indonesia or independence. The vote showed resounding support for independence. Pro-Indonesia militias responded immediately with violence and destruction. Most major buildings and infrastructure that supported water supplies were destroyed or damaged (Kingsbury 2005). Electricity-generating capacity was reduced by 30% in Dili and by 50% to 90% in district capitals. Most of the fixed telephone lines were damaged and transportation was in extremely short supply. Eighty percent of all medical clinics and schools were destroyed. Banks and markets were either burgled or destroyed, and half of the country’s livestock were lost. The entire public administration
ceased to function (Lundahl and Sjoholm 2012; FAO/WFP 2003). It is from this position of physical and economic destruction and enormous social turmoil that East Timor had to commence its development. The United Nations Mission to East Timor (UNAMET) had administered the referendum. Due to the state of the country and events following the referendum, UNAMET became the governing body of East Timor as UN Transitional Administration to ET (UNTAET) until 2002 (Chopra 2002).
In April 2006 tensions over accusations of discrimination within the new military force led to more violence, leading to trade disruption and the suspension of shipping - temporarily cutting-off links for vital food imports. By August that year 168,000 people were displaced to make-shift camps. The government, the UN and NGOs initiated a massive program to supply rice and other basic food to registered refugees. As a result of the 2006 crisis the GDP declined by 5.8% reducing incomes to substantially lower than during the Indonesian occupation (Lundahl and Sjoholm 2012). Then, in February 2007 rice shortages triggered a new wave of violence and further disruption to food shipments, increasing the price of a 38 kilogram sack of rice from US$12 to US$30 (Kammen and Hayati 2007:1-4).
3.2 The Economic and Social Conditions of the New Nation
The legacy of colonialism and the violence associated with Timor-Leste’s independence have impacted upon the economic capacity and social conditions of this country. The country’s national budget is hugely reliant on revenues from the Timor Gap gas and oil fields. Oil and gas contribute almost 90% of total budget revenue (RDTL 2011), and 81% of the country’s Gross Domestic product (GDP) (RDTL DGS 2013). Moreover, approximately half of the non-oil GDP (of $1.1 billion) was from state spending, 94% of which was fuelled with oil revenues (La’o Hamutuk 2013a:2).
Under Timor-Leste’s 2005 Petroleum Fund Law, all oil revenues are deposited into a Petroleum Fund. All withdrawals from the Fund are channelled through the Government budget and, to protect capital, are subject to a ceiling based on an Estimated Sustainable Income (ESI) for the fiscal year (World Bank 2009). After the 2006/7 crisis, the government stimulated the economy with large public infrastructure programs and introduced pensions for the elderly, disabled and veterans. This was done by increasing withdrawals from the Petroleum Fund, which was, and continues to be, regarded with controversy by Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and multilateral institutions (La’o Hamutuk 2014a; ADB 2008; World Bank 2009).
Although Fund withdrawals have created growth and raised per capita income to more than 20% higher than in 2002, Timor-Leste is still a very poor country. Median per capita monthly income in 2011 was US$40 (RDTL 2014a:25). This is about 14% of regional per capita income (in developing East Asia and the Pacific) or 41% of the average per capita income level in Sub-Saharan Africa (Lundahl and Sjoholm 2012:4).
The combination of large oil and gas reserves with severe poverty makes Timor-Leste a classic case of the contradictions of resource-based, export-led development. At present, the petroleum industry is the focus of mega-project developments on the south coast; along with new airport and port facilities. But oil and gas currently provide few jobs while agriculture, on which more than 78% of the population depend for their livelihood (FAO 2014b), remains primarily subsistence. Agriculture suffers from lack of services (extension and credit) as well as a lack of infrastructure, including irrigation, markets, roads, food storage or processing facilities. The only significant agricultural export sector is coffee which accounts for approximately 80% of non-oil export revenue. Although it provides important foreign exchange and contributes income to an estimated 50,000 families (RDTL 2011:127) coffee growers are amongst the poorest farmers in Timor-Leste (Da Costa et al. 2013:84). A large percentage of trees are old and in need of improved management (Amaral 2003). There is no sign of an emerging manufacturing industry (Lundahl and Sjoholm 2012:6).
The lack of physical infrastructure (deficits of which were described by the World Bank in 2009 as “severe”) and limited access to finance (only 7% of the population use banking facilities) has seen Timor-Leste ranked as 170th out of 180 countries worldwide on overall ease of doing business (World Bank 2009:9-10). The central area of Dili and the regional centre of Baucau have 24 hour access to electricity but there are regular outages. About one-third of the population has very limited access to electricity, for approximately six hours per day (RDTL 2011); and many in rural areas have no access to electricity at all. For example, in the 20% of sucos identified by the ADB as having the lowest living standards, the average share of households with electricity is only 3%; and only 66% in the sucos with the highest living standards (ADB 2013:5).
3.3 Food and Nutritional security status
The overall poverty of Timor-Leste is unsurprisingly correlated with parlous levels of under-nutrition and food insecurity. At a national level, the country imports 33 times as much as it exports (RDTL DGS 2014 cited by Scheiner 2014:1); and is also a net food importer. In 2011 food imports were valued at US$81.3 million while agricultural exports were valued at US$12.3 million, 97% of which was coffee (FAO 2013).
Current food security is reflected in the high level of chronic malnutrition, primarily undernutrition. Undernutrition is caused by poor diet or poor biological use of nutrients consumed as a result of repeated infectious disease. Indicators of undernutrition include being underweight for one’s age, too short for one’s age (stunted), dangerously thin for one’s height (wasted) and deficient in vitamins and minerals. For children under the age of 5 years, more than 45% are underweight, 58% are stunted and 24.5% suffer wasting. Among the 20 countries in which rates of underweight and stunting are the highest in the world, Timor-Leste is at the top of the list, with the highest incidence in both categories (FAO 2014a).
In addition to chronic malnutrition, the people of Timor-Leste experience severe food shortages between the months of November and February. Figure 3.1 shows the timing of maize and rice harvests and reports by populations experiencing low food security. Food insecurity reflects crop yields, which are amongst the lowest in the East Asian and the Pacific region (World Bank 2009); and post-harvest losses (25% of total production in 2010) to rodents and insects (RDTL 2011:120). By November each year, stocks are largely exhausted and the absence of staple crops to harvest initiates the beginning of what the Timorese call the ‘hunger season’. The extension of the hunger season into February when maize harvesting is reaching its peak may be associated with access problems due to the differences of district-level deficits (see Figure 3.2), purchasing power, and transport problems (FAO/WFP 2003), particularly given that February is in the wet season when bad roads are sometimes not traversable.
Figure 3.1: Periods of Crop Harvests and Percentage of Food Insecure Population
Periods of Crop Harvests and Percentage of Food Insecure Population
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maize harvest
Rice harvest
Population reporting low food security
Source: UNWFP 2005:12
Figure 3.2: District-Level Deficit in Cereal Production Vs. Requirement for Food Use
Source: UNWFP 2005:27
The population also experiences “hidden hunger” which results from insufficient vitamins and minerals due to a lack of nutrient-rich foods (World Bank 2007). Nutrient deficiencies in Timor-Leste include Vitamin A, iron, folate (Vitamin B9), iodine and zinc. Forty-six percent of children under 5 suffer from Vitamin A deficiency; 33.3% suffer zinc deficiency and 62.5% suffer anaemia (RDTL 2014b:16). Caloric and nutrient deficiencies have significant social and economic consequences. For example, iron deficiency anaemia impairs growth and learning, lowers resistance to infectious diseases, reduces physical work capacity and
increases the risk of maternal death and delivering a low birth weight infant (URT, 2011). The World Bank notes that in the worst-affected countries, such deficiencies lead to estimated productivity losses equivalent to 10% of lifetime earnings; and, collectively, losses to GDP16 of 2 to 3 % (2007:95). Timor-Leste ranks amongst the 20 countries whose fruit and vegetable supply is the least. On a per capita basis the supply decreased between the periods 1990-92 and 2009-2011 (FAO 2014a:28). In 2010 the country imported more than 6,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables (RDTL 2011:126). Protein intake is also low compared to the global average, with limited access to protein-rich foods such as fish, animal meats and legume pulses.17 Approximately 40% of cereal food consumed is imported. Food accounts for 60% of the consumer price index (RDTL 2014a:25); with poor families spending 75% of their average income on food (UNWFP 2009).
Beyond the need to improve access to a better diet, the capacity to absorb and retain nutrients is affected by infectious disease associated with the lack of clean water supply and poor sanitation. As of the 2010 Census, only 42% of urban households had access to household tap water and only 25% of rural households had access to drinking water from a well or spring. More than a third of households need to walk ten minutes or more to access water (RDTL 2011:77). In 2011, 38.7% of households had improved sanitation facilities (UNICEF 2013).
The future prospects of Timor-Leste’s agriculture to both increase and sustain production depends heavily on improved natural resource management, discussed in the following section.
3.4 Timor-Leste’s physical environment and climate
Timor-Leste’s physical environment and climate emphasises the need for good natural resource management to ensure food security. The country is small, with total land resources of less than 1.5 million hectares (FAO 2011). Seventy-two percent of the country is mountainous, with a main ridge extending down the centre from west to east. The country can be divided into six ecological regions including the mountainous areas, highland plains, moist
16
For example, “Iron deficiency among female agricultural workers in Sierra Leone will cost the economy $100 million in the next five years” (World Bank 2007:95).
17
Average per capita consumption of meat and fish protein in Timor-Leste is 19.4 kg/year (RDTL 2011:65) as compared to a world average meat consumption of 32 kg/capita/year (GOS 2011:14) and per capita fish consumption of 17.8kg/year (RDTL 2012:6) being additional.
